Don't ever go there! They take half the settlement. The firm is so unorganized. You never know who you have as a lawyer. They totally mess up your case than want ten thousand or more to do a crappy job and lose everything for you. I have had lawyers before and they are thieves. Big thieves. Look them up! The other person who wrote the review is right. They are thieves. They will run you around in circles and tell you nothing but lies. I never knew any of the lawyers that showed up for the deposition.. which by the way will do and say nothing and prepare you for nothing. You do all the work and they claim they do thousands of dollars. I had so many different lawyers and legal assistants just like Eliz did. I couldn't keep up with any of the names. Switched around. It was exhausting. No one knew my case. The did such a crappy job and took half of my settlement also. I would never go to this firm again. They should be shut down for fraud claiming that they will only take a 1/3 yes than ten grand or more for nothing. Do not do not go to them. They are crooks.
Here is one complaint on record:
Christopher Trainor, P-42449, Detroit, Michigan, by Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #1. 1) Reprimand; 2) Effective July 27, 1994. The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for consent order of discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the hearing panel and the Attorney Grievance Commission. The respondent admitted the allegations in an amended formal complaint that in his representation of a plaintiff in a civil action, he received a settlement check in the amount of $650.00 made payable to the respondent and his client; that he deposited the check in his trust account without his client's endorsement; and that he subsequently applied the entire amount to a statement for attorney fees without his client's consent. Respondent's conduct was admitted to be in violation of MCR 9.104(1)-(4) and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a)-(c) and 8.4(a)-(c). Costs were assessed in the amount of $85.00.
Here is another:
MEMBERSJOHN F. VAN BOLTSTATE OF MICHIGANEXECUTIVE DIRECTORWILLIAM P. HAMPTONCHAIRPERSONMARK A. ARMITAGEATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARDDEPUTY DIRECTORLORI McALLISTERVICE-CHAIRPERSONJENNIFER M. PETTYLEGAL ASSISTANTWILLIAM L. MATTHEWS, CPASECRETARY211 WEST FORT ST.REV. IRA COMBS, JR.SUITE 1410GEORGE H. LENNONDETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236BILLY BEN BAUMANN, M.D.PHONE: 313-963-5553FAX: 313-963-5571HON. RICHARD F. SUHRHEINRICHWILLIAM J. DANHOFWWW.ADBMICH.ORGANDREA L. SOLAKDISMISSALCase No. 06-120-GAChristopher J. Trainor, P 42449, White Lake, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline BoardTri-County Hearing Panel #63.1.Dismissal2.Effective September 5, 2007The formal complaint filed by the Grievance Administrator charged that respondent, in adivorce matter, attempted to settle a claim for legal malpractice with his client, an unrepresentedclient or former client, without first advising him in writing that independent representation isappropriate with regard to that claim; failed to make reasonable efforts, as a partner in a firm, toensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firmconform to the Rules of Professional Conduct; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to theadministration of justice; and engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courtsto obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach.The complaint further charged that respondent'sconduct was in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(1 )-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct1.8(h)(2); 5.1 (a); and 8.4(a) and (c).A two day hearing took place and, after petitioner's case in chief was presented, therespondent moved for involuntary dismissal pursuant to MCR 2.504(b)(2). The panel granted inpart by dismissing the charges that respondent violated MCR 9.1 04(A)(1) and (3); and MRPC5.1 (a); and 8.4(c). However, the panel did not dismiss the charges that respondent violated MRPC1.8(h)(2) ; and 8.4(a).Further evidence and testimony was provided as to the remainingallegations.Upon review of the evidence and testimony, the panel found that respondent knew that hisclientwas represented by other counsel at the time he attempted to have his client sign the release.Therefore, the requirement that respondent advise his client in writing to seek independentrepresentation was not necessary. The panel dismissed the remainder of the allegations in theformal complaint.No costs were assessed against respondent.SEP52nO?Dated:_ read more